 Diolch. ease to answer those questions. As the First Minister is aware that there will be First Minister's questions without an open or diary question. Leaders will begin by asking their substantive questions. On that note, question number 1 is from Ruth Davidson. The First Minister said on Tuesday that she wanted to open a discussion on tax, so let's begin right now. I am opposed to all current basic rate taxpayers paying more on income tax. Will the First Minister confirm that she is too? Usually when we open a debate and commit to listening to what others have to say, it makes sense to carry on and do that before running things out in advance. Let me be quite clear about the principles that will guide this Government. Firstly, we will, as we always have done... set tax, rates responsibly and with the interests of household, businesses, the wider society and the economy firmly at heart. gyda'r wath rydych chi'n gweld am i ddechrau sydd fod gan ddechrau yn siaradau lluniau. Felly, ac ydw weithgur Hastiridog yma, byddwn i'n dweud hwn i dweud o syniadau cael ei wneud o wastadau iwn y gwaith nifer. Fy fyddai Gweithwysig rydych chi'n gweithio i beth i Rhydd Davidson i ddweud ei wneud eich gweithio i brexitau a ddechrau i ddweud o hyd i grwyddonigol wedi gwybodaeth ac mae'r rhaniwethaf o'i pan �erwyr ar gwaith dymograth. O'ch ffordd, ond ystafell ddylosiaeth gartfaith o'r pleideghau allee. Padaeb o'i llaw o'r pleideghau o'r pleideghau, sydd eun i'r bobl yn eu rhyw ffrindiau. O'ch ffordd o'i ffigur o'i ffalu wedi ddechrau allee, diwrnod i'r cyffredig y ddefnyddio mewn iawn. Mae'n dod o'i ddefnyddio'r lleideghau i'r ffordd o'r pleideghau. If the Tories want to sit on the sidelines of that, calling day in and day out as they do for extra spending on a range of different things, while also calling for tax cuts for the richest in our society, then the Tories will continue to have not a shred of credibility. Ruth Davidson keeps telling us that she wants to be taken seriously. Now we will all get an opportunity to see whether she is up to that or not. Ruth Davidson I think that anyone earning less than £43,000 a year in Scotland just heard the First Minister's message loud and clear. She's coming for your paycheck. But let me ask her the next question. In her general election manifesto published just 100 days ago, the First Minister said this. There is a risk that an increase in the additional rate of income tax in Scotland alone would lead to a loss of revenue. Does she believe that that risk has somehow disappeared in the last 100 days? It is exactly the risks as well as the benefits of different tax policies that we have said we are going to set out openly and honestly and allow this Parliament and the wider public to have a mature debate about that. It is because of concerns that I had about raising the additional rate in Scotland alone that we did not do it last year. Instead, I asked the council of economic advisers to give us advice on that. Of course, we have consistently taken a very responsible approach to taxation. That is right and proper for any Government. We also have a responsibility to everybody in our country to make sure that as we go into the next decade and beyond we are protecting the public services that all of us depend on. That we are ensuring that our nurses, doctors, police officers, teachers and firefighters are well rewarded. That is why I have said that we are going to lift the 1 per cent public sector pay cap. It is vital that we make sure that the support that our businesses need, whether that is the additional investment in R&D that I have announced in the last few days or that the transport and digital infrastructure that our businesses need to thrive is there as well. I am saying that, as a country, let us have that mature and honest debate. I know that my party will take part in that with an open mind. Given their positions on taxation, I hope and believe that Labour, the Greens and the Liberals will take part in that debate with an open mind. I suspect that, based on what we have heard and are hearing today from Ruth Davidson, what we will continue to get from the Tories is daily demands for extra spending. In the last week alone, it has been Frank's law, which I am delighted that we will go ahead with. It has been extra spending for more housing. I think that we have just heard somebody call for extra spending on the national health service. The Tories want extra spending but they also want tax cuts for the richest. That is not a credible position but that should hardly be surprising because the Tories increasingly are not a credible party. In that answer, the First Minister said twice about supporting what our businesses need and supporting what Scotland's businesses need. Let us listen to Scotland's business community, shall we? Today, David Lonstail of the Scottish Retail Consortium, any notions about increasing income tax rates should be knocked firmly on the head as it could cast a pall over consumer spending, which is the mainstay of Scotland's economy. Liz Cameron, the chief executive of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, is growing the Scottish economy, not squeezing the last drops out of existing businesses and workers that will generate more tax revenues. Increasing tax rates beyond that of our neighbours could well deliver the opposite result. Scotland's businesses are telling you what they want and need and you are not listening. The question is the same and we have been here before. If raising taxes in Scotland damages the Scottish economy leads to the loss of revenue that your own manifesto talked about, which is the money that we need to spend on our NHS and schools, why would any responsible Government do it? First Minister. Let's just cover a few points here. First, let's look at Scotland's economy, which faces challenges, but we have seen in the most recent statistics Scotland's economy growing four times as fast as the economy elsewhere in the UK. We have unemployment in Scotland today close to the lowest level on record. Youth unemployment at a record high—half the rate it was 10 years ago. We are seeing progress in Scotland's economy, which we must continue to protect, and that I am absolutely clear about. Second point that I think is worth making, Presiding Officer, because it is one that day and daily right now everybody across the country is becoming ever clearer about. One of the reasons why we are having these debates right now is the damage that, firstly, Tory austerity is doing, and now the reckless Tory Brexit is threatening to do to our economy. I think, frankly, it is beyond belief that Ruth Davidson can say, as she did yesterday, that she thinks Brexit might do damage to this country that it will never recover from, and yet expects us just to carry on with Brexit regardless. Ruth Davidson, frankly, should hang her head in shame. The next point about consumer spending is this. It's because I want to see consumer spending protected is that I think it's time to give our public sector workers a pay rise as well as fairness for them. So we will continue to take these decisions responsibly and with the interests of the country as a whole at heart. Our businesses need investment as well. They need investment in health, in education, in skills, in infrastructure—all of that has to be paid for. And we all want, or at least those of us on this side of the chamber, want high-quality public services. So we will lead that open, honest, mature debate about how, as a country, we best provide the services and the business support that we need. I don't know whether the Tories will want to be part of that debate or whether they will simply call for more and more spending and more and more tax cuts for the richest. But I'm determined to lead a debate that is right for the overall interests of this country that I'm proud to be First Minister of. Ruth Davidson. The First Minister opened by talking about how the last quarter figures showed Scotland growing faster than the rest of the UK. She's absolutely right. I welcome that. It doesn't erase the fact that for 10 years and over the last 10 years we've been growing slower and we're talking about how do we keep us growing faster and punitive tax rates is not the way to do that. And as I said on Tuesday, in response to the First Minister's statement, there is room for consensus in this Parliament. Indeed, I welcome some of the ideas in the economy. The First Minister puts forward, like, for example, cutting ABD in order to stimulate economic growth. But we have to get the balance right. And jacking up taxes on working families and businesses in Scotland will damage the Government's stated objective of getting the economy growing faster and of bringing in more revenue. And as Liz Cameron adds today in what she has said as the voice of Scottish business, the biggest concern here is over the message that tax rises send out about Scotland's reputation as a place that values ambition, that welcomes business and that wants to grow. So, in the spirit of a mature debate, doesn't the First Minister accept that by going down this route she risks damaging that reputation, as Liz Cameron says, and stifling the ambitions that all Scots should share? Briefly, First Minister. The reputation of this country right now is the isolationist inward-looking Brexit approach of the Tories. What is damaging this country right now are things like leaked Home Office proposals showing that the Tories want to punish people who come from other countries and introduce measures that would be devastating for our economy. But back to the tax issue. We will have this debate involving everybody, including business, because their views are hugely important, as are the views of those who work in our public services and the public at large. Do you know what message I want to send about Scotland? I want to send it to people here at home, to people elsewhere in the UK and people internationally. I want to send the message that Scotland is the best place in the world to grow up in and be educated. Scotland is the best place in the world to be cared for if you are sick or vulnerable or in need. Scotland is the best place in the world to grow old in. It is the best place in the world because of our investment in infrastructure, in digital, in business support, to invest and do business in as well. That is the message that I want to send to the world about Scotland. All of us need to make sure that we do what is necessary to deliver that kind of world-class nation. Question 2, Alex Rowley. Presiding Officer, Labour has been calling for and will very much welcome such a debate on how we invest in Scotland's future moving forward because we cannot continue with failed Tory austerity. On Tuesday, before the programme of government was announced, a set of statistics detailing the performance of our national health service were published. Our hospitals don't have enough doctors, nurses and midwives. Hundreds of operations have been cancelled because hospitals cannot cope. Two years on from the health secretary, promising to abolish delayed discharges, over 1,000 patients were stuck in hospitals when they were fit to go home. Those surely dreadful figures, but perhaps the most damning of all, one in five young people needed treatment for mental health and they had to wait longer than they agreed waiting time. What does the First Minister propose to do about that? First Minister. Alex Rowley. First, I take the opportunity to welcome Alex Rowley to his place, albeit temporarily, but I am sure that we will enjoy our exchanges over the next few weeks. First, Alex Rowley raises a number of extremely important and serious issues. Let me just say before I address what we are doing about those issues at a number of points that he alluded to. First, in terms of people working in our national health service, there are almost 12,000 more people working in our national health service today than was the case when this Government took office. In terms of delayed discharge, we see the bed days lost to delayed discharge reducing and we are determined to reduce that even further. The rate of cancellation of hospital operations, while there will always be a small number of hospital operations cancelled for a number of reasons, has remained steady over the years and has not significantly increased. That is some of the context to this. In terms of what we are doing, although I have spoken about this many times as have other members, we have a health service that is not facing unique challenges, but it is facing the challenge of rising demand, partly from an ageing population, partly in terms of some of the issues around mental health that Alex Rowley raises from the reducing stigma of mental health. We are in common with many other countries of investing in and reforming our health service so that it can meet those challenges for the future. In terms of investment, the health budget today is around £3 billion higher than it was when this Government took office and we have given a commitment to a further £2 billion increase over the life of this Parliament. That is why, in the programme for government, I committed to at least a real-terms increase in the resource budget next year. I have said many times to Kezia Dugdale that that is a higher commitment to NHS investment than Labour made in its manifesto for the Scottish Parliament elections. Secondly, we are committed to a programme of reform in our national health service. That means transferring more of the health budget into community and primary care and mental health services. Investment and reform are the challenges that we are taking forward. Some of those issues are difficult and will involve difficult decisions in the chamber, but I ask all members across the chamber to get involved in those discussions so that collectively we take the decisions now that will equip our health service for the future. Alex Rowley. I would certainly, as the First Minister, would expect to dispute the figures in terms of who committed to what. It is more important than that because too many children in Scotland are being let down. That is the key serious issue that we have here. My approach has always been on the big issues that we should try and work together with the Government to find a solution. But a year ago this week, Labour published a proposal that would end the scandal of poor support for child mental health. We put those proposals directly to the First Minister. We called for three things. We called for a review of why so many children were being rejected from treatment. We asked for a guaranteed access for every secondary school to a qualified and experienced school councillor. We asked for this Government to finally use the tax powers of the Scottish Parliament to stop the cuts to local public services and to invest where investment is needed. Nowhere is it more clear that we need to invest in child mental health services and, in particular, children's mental health services. The First Minister said that she would look at that plan closely. Did she take on board any of those proposals? If so, can she give us an update on what progress has been made? First Minister. I recall the session of First Minister's questions where those plans were raised. I gave a commitment then to consider them as part of our finalisation of the mental health strategy. Yes, we have taken forward many of the things that Alec Rowley talks about. In particular, I'm surprised he doesn't know about because I think it was in this chamber at a session of FMQs that announced it. We committed to, for example, a review of CAMHS rejected referrals and we're beginning that review which was the first of the issues that Alec Rowley referred to in the school provision. We also committed in our mental health strategy to review of personal and social education in schools to make sure that vital link between education and health services is recognised and strengthened. Lastly, in terms of tax, we've had many debates in tax over the past couple of years. In last year's budget, of course, we did take the decision that we took around tax opposed by the Conservatives. Of course, Labour encouraged us to go further. As I've just debated with Ruth Davidson, I do think that the time is right now to look at how we fund our public services in the longer term. That is a debate that I hope and expect Labour will take part in constructively. On the issues of mental health, as I've said before, we're seeing rising demand for mental health services. That puts an onus on the Government to make sure that the services are there. We see improvement in waiting times, for example. We see a significant increase in the mental health workforce to support those expanded services. We'll continue to take the action and invest the resources that bring about those improvements. I'm certainly aware that this week's programme for government has clear commitments to look at that. Labour will work with the Government on that. The action speaks louder than words. I don't know if the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister have ever been in schools and talked to teachers about the importance of having counselling services. I have, and I know that schools value those services and want to see those services. The Government has a target, but that target has never been met. More than 9,000 young people have waited too long for treatment. This cannot be allowed to continue. It is your Government that needs to do something about that. Not next year, but start to do it now. I say actions speak louder than words. I asked the First Minister how many times does the issue of children's mental health services need to be raised in this Parliament before you and your Government will do something about it? Hi. Again, succinctly Christmas. Alex Rowley genuinely is a very considered and a very fair politician. I often appreciate the constructive way in which he raises issues. I would include today in that. Alex Rowley has been a tad unfair in terms of his characterisation of the Government's approach. I already referred to the review of rejected referrals. Labour called for a review and it is a review that is now happening. In terms of additional resources in schools, the pupil equity funding that we put in place last year is already supporting headteachers and teachers in schools where they think that is appropriate to help them to close the attainment gap and invest in measures like that. That is concrete action under way right now as we speak. The mental health strategy which is now finalised by new resources is helping us to continue the progress that we have already made on increasing the workforce in CAMHS and reducing the time that young people wait. Those are hugely important issues. I am not standing here saying that there is not more work for us to do. Of course there is. I would expect and welcome the fact that those who care about these issues press us to go further and faster. That is absolutely legitimate. That is the characterisation that the Government has done and is doing nothing because that is manifestly not the case. I encourage Alex Rowley and I certainly will play my part in this. Let us come together where we can to make sure that we take the right decisions to ensure that young people get access to the mental health services that they deserve and need. A couple of constituency questions. The first is from Ben Macpherson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I remind the chamber that I am going to speak to the First Minister on the 10th of August, one of my constituents, a 10-year-old boy, was callously run over by a recklessly driven stolen motorcycle in North Edinburgh on Ferry Road, which borders my constituency in Alex Cole-Hamilton's. The young victim of this shocking hit-and-run was left fighting for his life with severe injuries. He was only discharged from hospital yesterday and I am sure that the Parliament will join me in wishing him well and a full recovery. This terrible incident is one of the most serious that I have taken place in a series of dangerous and anti-social motor bike offences in North Edinburgh over a number of years, perpetrated by a small group of offenders. Local politicians like myself and others have been working collaboratively with Police Scotland, City of Edinburgh Council, the Crown and Procurator Fiscal Service, local youth work groups and other partners to tackle this criminality, which no community should have to endure. Therefore, can I ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to tackle the dangerous joy-reading of motorcycles in North Edinburgh? Can more be done to address this serious issue? First Minister. Firstly, I am grateful to Ben Macpherson for raising what is an extremely serious issue. First and foremost, of course, the case that he refers to was a terrible tragedy. I want to take the opportunity today to offer my sincere condolences to the young boy's family and friends and indeed to the whole community in North Edinburgh. As this tragedy in indeed Ben Macpherson's comments illustrate, there is a real and significant risk of serious harm from the theft and illegal use of motorbikes, harm to residents and also the young people themselves who are engaging in this illegal behaviour. It has to be stopped and I know that agencies are working with local MSPs and, importantly, the community in North Edinburgh to find solutions. Local partnership is key to confronting the behaviour and dealing with underlying issues and I know that stronger north group has important role in this. There are a series of initiatives being put in place by the police, by the council and by community groups to divert young people from crime and Scottish Government officials from safer communities and youth justice are also engaging with the police, local agencies and third sector partners including the Robertson Trust to see what more can be done. I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice wrote to Ben Macpherson last month to set out a range of initiatives and resources that are working in this area and I can give Ben Macpherson a commitment today that we will continue to engage constructively to ensure that the Government is playing our part in finding the solutions to this very serious issue. The First Minister will be aware of reports about a constituent that I have been assisting in Edinburgh, Lydia Reid, who has recently discovered that her son's coffin was buried in 1975 with nobody in it. This revelation comes after 42 years of her seeking to discover what happened to the remains of her child and her leading the campaign which exposed how hospitals had unlawfully kept deceased children's body parts for research purposes. Will the First Minister commit to finding the answers to what happened in Lydia Reid's case and can she confirm that everything will be done to discover whether this has happened to other families as well? First Minister, I am obviously aware of the case and I want to take the opportunity to give my sympathies to Lydia Reid and to her family. It is very difficult for any of us who have not gone through experiences like this to fully appreciate and understand the distress that Lydia Reid and any others in similar situations would be experiencing. I can only imagine what that must be. I can give an assurance today clearly that there has been some work around issues of this nature in the past but I will give an assurance today that the relevant minister will be happy to meet Lydia Reid to see what the Scottish Government or our agencies can do to try to ensure that she gets the answers that she certainly deserves and will personally feel she needs in order to allow her to move on from this revelation. I will give that assurance to the member today and will take steps to ensure that there will be a clear and positive direction of our work to ensure that we can get things back that we have never been told, and that there will be a very positive direction to continue to the work that we want to do. I will go ten oedd on whether the UK has the skills that that work is fully funded and it helps the maximum number of people possible in Scotland, but there's much more that we need to do to reduce poverty in Scotland, especially in light of the impact of the UK government's extended even more harmful benefit cap. Research that we've conducted shows that it's hit 3,700 more households and 11,000 children in Scotland, well over a 400 per cent increase in Glasgow alone. 64 per cent of those households are single parents and the vast majority of them of course are women. On average, those households are receiving 57 pounds a week less than they're assessed as needing. In short, this cap targets families with children who are already poorer and makes them even poorer. The Scottish Government has allocated some funds to mitigate that, but is the First Minister aware of the evidence presented by the child poverty action group that the discretionary housing payments intended to achieve this are falling well short of what's required? Some councils indeed have indicated that we are not in a position to award discretionary housing payments for cases affected by the benefit cap. Some councils indicated that they cannot do that at all. Is the First Minister aware of that shortfall and what will be done to make it up? I'm very happy to look at this in more detail. We have used discretionary housing payments, which are administered by local authorities, to try to mitigate a number of the welfare changes that the UK Government has made. The ones that Patrick Harvie has talked about today, but we have used discretionary housing payments to make sure that nobody in Scotland has to pay the bedroom tax, for example, until such times as we can legally abolish the bedroom tax. Inevitably, discretionary housing payments come under pressure. In the past, I used to—in previous ministerial responsibilities—have oversight of this. I know that we have had on-going discussions with local authorities about discretionary housing payments and the sufficiency of them. We will continue to have those discussions and we will try to make sure that they are operating in a way that allows us to mitigate the impact of welfare changes as much as possible. We are almost at the end of a week in which the United Nations has described the UK Government's approach to disabled people as a human catastrophe. I know that that is not the particular issue that Patrick Harvie raises, but it shines a light on the inhumanity of the welfare policies of the Conservative Government at Westminster, and it should hang its heads in shame day in and day out for the misery that it is inflicting on vulnerable people, the length and breadth of this country. We will do whatever we can to mitigate that, and I am happy to give an undertaking to Patrick Harvie today that I will talk to Jeane Freeman, particularly at the evidence that he is talking about and have a discussion with local authorities about whether there is further action that we need to take. Patrick Harvie? The First Minister is, of course, right to challenge the decisions of the UK Government, but in the face of the crisis that those decisions have created, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament have a responsibility to act. There are councils down south such as Croydon, which are taking a much more proactive approach at ensuring that they give the advice, the proactive work, the advice to all families to maximise their incomes where possible. The approach that we have suggested on maximising households' income through the family health check could be taken at council level to ensure that all families are able to access the DHP payments if they need it. Does the First Minister agree, first of all, that there is a need for consistency across councils and that national guidance to achieve that would be one step in the way of achieving that comprehensive approach? However, the Scottish Government's own figures show that something in the region of £2 million reduced in payments nationally through the initial cap, another £9 million or so on top of that from the extended cap, and the Scottish Government's allocation is only in the order of £8 million. The shortfall is inevitably going to lead to more debt arrears, more evictions, more hunger and more hardship. Does the First Minister acknowledge the urgency of closing that gap, ensuring that councils not only take a comprehensive approach to the advice that they are giving, but have the resources available to make the payments that are so urgently needed by many families in Scotland? First of all, I would be happy to look at evidence or experiences from anywhere else across the UK that might inform our approach. The Croydon example that Patrick Harvie uses is one that I am certainly happy to look at. Having said that, I would doubt very much if there is any part of the UK right now doing more to mitigate Tory welfare cuts than the Scottish Government is doing right now. We are spending hundreds of millions of pounds over the life of a Parliament doing just that. Money, frankly, that I would far rather be investing in our national health service or in our education system or in almost anything other than mitigating the cruel policies of a Tory Government. In terms of the second part of Patrick Harvie's questions about consistency, yes, I do agree, and indeed that is one of the reasons why the programme for government referred to the roll-out of family health checks. I do believe that things like that are often best delivered locally but within a framework of national guidance, and of course we will put forward more detail on that shortly. The final point is in terms of the quantum of the resources that we can make available. We will continue to do everything that we possibly can to mitigate these cuts, but when you are mitigating something as opposed to removing it at source, there are always going to be constraints and limitations on what you can do. When the Tories make those heartless cuts, I wish they would not, but when they do, they do not hand to the Scottish Government our share of the savings that they make to allow us to decide how we do that. Every pound of mitigation that we allocate is a pound that we are having to take from other parts of the Scottish budget, so we will do everything that we can, but let us be in no doubt that the real solution here is not mitigation, the real long-term solution is to get those powers out of the hands of Tories at Westminster and into the hands of this Parliament. I am conscious that it has taken 33 minutes to get through the party leaders' questions with only two constituency supplementaries. I would just encourage some of the questions and some of the answers have been welcome when they succinct. I would encourage all the party leaders and the First Minister please to keep the questions and the answers brief and to the point that this is not a conversation, it is a question and answer session. I have a number of members to get through. If we make progress, Mark Ruskell, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Last week, the First Minister's Government approved mansions, a hotel, golf course and tennis centre on the protected park of Kear near Dunblane. This decision overruled the local development plan, it overruled Stirling Council and it even overruled the Government's own planning reporter. Did the First Minister's Government not learn anything from the disastrous decision to approve Trump's golf resort? Celebrities should not rule the planning system and, despite the celebrity spin, the real national tennis centre is only two miles up the road at Stirling University. Can the First Minister guarantee that there will be no public funding to bail out the park of Kear project if it fails and that public funds will only be used to support genuine community tennis facilities in Scotland? First, I am not sure if the member was trying to put Judy Murray into the same category as Donald Trump. I certainly hope not, but moving on from that, planning decisions are taken absolutely in line with planning rules and no other considerations are taken into account. The planning minister carefully considered all aspects of the reporter's report and concluded that the development is of regional and national significance for sport. Ministers are therefore minded to grant planning permission in principle, subject to conditions. The conditions have been set out, for example residential development not to be occupied until the tennis and golf centre is built and open for use. Ministers have also specified that, before consent can be granted, a legal agreement between the councillor and developer must be concluded and that will commit the developer to contributing towards affordable housing and education provision in the area. The next step in the process is for the councillor and the developer to discharge a legal agreement and then it will be up to ministers to determine whether planning permission is then formally granted. Now, because of all that, this is still a live planning matter and I am not going to say any more than that, but the point that I will underline in all of this and I absolutely understand the disappointment in any planning application of those who oppose it if it is then granted. However, those decisions are taken in line with due process. That is the way that it should be and that is the way that it always will be. To ask the First Minister what assurance the Scottish Government has received regarding the transfer of powers to Scotland following Brexit. The UK Government's white paper on the withdrawal bill stated that it expected a significant increase in the decision-making power of each devolved administration, but I have to say that the opposite, as things stand, is the case. The bill centralises to Westminster powers on all matters currently subject to EU, including in devolved areas. In other words, matters that should properly be exercised in this Parliament. Of course, it also imposes new and, I think, unworkable restrictions on the powers of the Parliament in these areas. It is for those reasons that I and the First Minister of Wales have made clear that we will not recommend consent to the bill unless appropriate amendments are made to deal with those concerns. Stuart McMillan I thank the First Minister for that reply. Can the First Minister confirm that there has been no joint ministerial committee meetings since February? There has been a lack of constructive activity from the UK Government towards Scotland and Wales and that the Brexit discussions being led by David Davis are showing a complete lack of vision from the UK Government. Does the First Minister agree with me that the UK Government's shambolic approach this far is just a naked power grab? The First Minister Well, firstly, on the power grab, when I was given my first answer in talking about the replacement of EU law in devolved areas with unilateral Westminster decision-making, I heard somebody from the Tory benches—I do not know who it was—shout from a sedentary position rubbish. The House of Commons issued a briefing paper on the Brexit bill last Friday. Here is what the House of Commons briefing paper says. The bill effectively re-reserves to the UK Parliament those areas of competence within competencies that have otherwise been devolved. Re-reserves. That is, I suppose, polite language for a naked power grab. That is why, in all conscience, I will not say to this Parliament and recommend to this Parliament that we should approve this bill. Of course, we continue to discuss with the UK Government sensible amendments and we hope that we will achieve sensible amendments. As I said the other day, if that does not prove possible, we are also looking at the possibility of continuity legislation in this Parliament. All of those discussions would be helped if we had a UK Government that was willing to enter in any kind of meaningful way. There has not been a joint ministerial committee meeting since February of this year. The papers that the UK Government has been publishing, many of them in devolved areas, have been published without any consultation with any of the devolved administrations whatsoever. Not only is the UK Government treating devolved administrations with contempt, as we have all seen in the past number of weeks, they are leading the UK blindly off a cliff edge. This is a UK Government that is lost its way, lost the plot, has no idea whatsoever what it is doing. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the concerns that have been expressed regarding the efficacy of the national 4 qualification. The national 4 is a significant achievement for many pupils that represents the right level of qualification to reflect their attainment while still offering a route for pupils to go on to obtain national 5s and even higher. Concerns have, however, been expressed about aspects of the qualification, not least that it does not include an external exam, and that is why there is currently an expert review. I would say, however, that attempts by some to use those concerns to denigrate the academic achievements of tens of thousands of young people who have been awarded those qualifications is disgraceful. It is unwarranted and does a deep disservice to our young people who work hard to achieve those qualifications. In light of what you have just said, it was February 2014 when the education committee of this Parliament heard concerns from teacher representatives that national 4 was not highly valued as a qualification because of the absence of that exam. That concern was repeated at the education committee in November 2016, when teachers made very clear that they felt that, as a result, too many pupils were being pushed into taking national 5 exams when that was not in their best educational interest. Today, the results of the SQA survey are telling us exactly the same thing. Could I ask you, First Minister, why, when this is so important to youngsters, has it taken two and a half years to start addressing this problem? Firstly, the decision not to have an exam at national 4 was actually made following discussions at the qualifications governing group, which is a body that includes teachers. It was aiming to ensure that more time is spent on learning rather than assessment. We have had concerns raised now. That is why a review has been established and is being undertaken by the assessment and national qualifications group. That group is made up of the SQA education, Scotland, EIS and other stakeholders that are chaired by the Deputy First Minister. I think that, if changes are to be made, it is important that those changes are properly thought through, taking account of the views of a range of education bodies and other stakeholders, and recognising some of the other changes that are being made to national 5s and higher. Those are decisions that we will take forward with proper consideration and process. I say again that, while it is right that concerns are recognised, while it is right that changes are made if there is a consensus around those changes, I am not saying that Liz Smith is doing this, but that some have. Let's make sure that we don't undermine the achievements of young people who work hard for those qualifications. As the EIS General Secretary, Larry Flanagan, said just this week, for many pupils, gaining a national 4 award is a significant step and we are clear that that achievement should be celebrated. I agree with that wholeheartedly. Question 6, Monica Lennon. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the reported significant increase in the number of deaths related to drug and alcohol misuse in the last year. Firstly, I would like to put on record my deepest sympathy to any family who has lost a loved one through drug use. We recognise that, behind those numbers, there are individual tragedies and loss of life, which is devastating. The rise that we have seen, of course, is the result of the growing older of many long-term drug users who go on to experience a range of chronic conditions as they do get older. We know from the recent report from NHS Health Scotland that there is an established link between the rise in drug deaths now and previous austerity policies of the 1980s, and that should tell us something about not repeating those mistakes for the future. Of course, the Scottish Government has a responsibility to act and we are determined to do that. The programme for government sets out an additional £20 million investment for alcohol and drug services, and our new drug strategy will be based on the principle of seek, keep and treat to recognise that problems of substance misuse must be addressed from a public health perspective. Monica Lennon. I thank the First Minister for her reply. I have deep concerns about the funding and adequacy of recovery services, but I want to focus on a different barrier to recovery, the stigma around addiction. Living with addiction is not easy to speak about, but that has to change as recovery and support services can't help people if they feel too ashamed to access them. Too often, families only break their silence about drug and alcohol harm after they have buried their loved ones. I know that, because two years ago, my dad died as a result of alcohol harm. In 2016, Scotland reached an unacceptable 10-year peak, with 2,132 people dying as a result of alcohol and drugs misuse. We have a long way to go. Can I ask the First Minister to join me in sending a message to everyone in Scotland, affected by drug and alcohol harm, that they matter, that they are not to blame and that they are deserving of support? I thank Monica Lennon for raising that issue. I also pay tribute to her courage, given her personal experience in standing up in the chamber today and raising issues that are often deeply personal to people but hugely important to our society as a whole. Monica Lennon is absolutely right. First of all, we must see those who suffer from addiction as human beings first and foremost. That is why I ended my first answer by saying that we must treat those issues from a public health perspective first and foremost. That is what our renewed strategy will be seeking to do. We must make sure—this is why we have set out plans for additional funding—that when people find the courage to come forward and seek help, that help is there for them from the services that Monica Lennon has spoken about. People find themselves with addiction and dealing with drug or alcohol problems, often because of other factors in their lives. It is those underlying factors, as well as their needs as human beings, that must be absolutely uppermost in our minds. I would be happy to talk to Monica Lennon at greater length about those issues based on the experience that she has shared with us today, but I think that all of us across the chamber will agree that that kind of sentiment must be the driving force behind the changes that we are seeking to make. I will squeeze in question number seven from Liam McArthur. I will ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will provide an update on the management of Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority. Significant work is now under way across Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority to give effect to policing 2026, which is a long-term transformational strategy published by the service in June of this year. The process of appointing a new SPA chair is on-going and work to identify an interim chief officer for the authority began this week. Steps have also been taken to strengthen Police Scotland's executive team through the appointment of a new deputy chief constable with that process due to be completed in the coming weeks. Liam McArthur. Reports today suggest that the independent inspectorate will be scathing about what it calls this Government's politically motivated dismantling of the British Transport Police in Scotland. That follows a summer that has seen the chief constable under investigation and the SPA chief executive like the chair heading out the door. Will the First Minister now agree to the call by the justice spokespeople of all four opposition parties, myself included, for change for the next chair of the SPA to be appointed by this Parliament, not solely ministers, recognising our collective interest in seeing the mess that has been created. As it happens, I am not entirely unsympathetic to the case that Liam McArthur has made there. I would simply point out—I am sure that members will understand why I point this out—that the process of appointment is laid down in the legislation. It is a requirement of the Police and Fire Reform Scotland act that Scottish ministers appoint the chair of the SPA. Where the Parliament has a role in appointments—for example, the information commissioner, the children's commissioner—this generally is set out in relevant legislation. That is not the case for the SPA, but ministers will carefully consider the case put forward and whether there is a role that Parliament could play within the framework set by the Police and Fire Reform act. I know that the justice secretary would be happy to have further discussions on that matter. That concludes First Minister's Questions. Before we move on, I point out to members that we have taken 48 minutes to get through First Minister's Questions today, but we have only had 11 members able to make a contribution. A number of members and the responses have been too lengthy. Members are giving huge preambles before asking their question, and some of the responses are too long. I urge—I have written to all members—I have spoken to all the party leaders. It is clear not having an effect. I ask you to think about it, and before next week, make your questions shorter and please also the answers more succinct. We will get through more and more members will be able to participate. We now move on to members' business. In the name of Alec Rowley, I will just take a few moments to change seats.